The 'rest of the story'

Coming next from the cooks at the discovery institute: Quote mine surprise!

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on. Five states (Ohio, New Mexico, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Kansas) have already adopted science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution. Further, Ohio adopted a model curriculum that includes a lesson plan on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution."

You have to wonder if the IDers are capable about saying anything on any subject that doesn't include a self-serving lie or distortion.

Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

— Judge Jones

At the Dover trial, Kenneth Miller said the following about the Cobb County textbook stickers --
"Now think about what this means to a student. It means to a student that you're supposed to do this to evolution but that every other topic in that book need not be critically considered or examined with an open mind."

It is just a biology textbook. Are there any other theories in the book besides evolution ? Probably all the other topics in the book are facts, so evolution was not being singled out for criticism among theories.

Just about the only theories that most secondary school students are ever taught in science classes are evolution theory and atomic theory. Most of the scientific principles that these students are taught are laws rather than theories. So maybe to be completely fair, physics and chemistry textbooks should have stickers with similar disclaimers about atomic theory. However, atomic theory makes more sense than evolution theory and also is not contrary to some people's religious beliefs, so there is no big movement to put atomic theory disclaimer stickers in textbooks.

Maybe the following should be added to the evolution disclaimer stickers --
"Even if you wholly or partly reject evolution theory, it is still important for you to be familiar with it because a lot of science is based on it. A scientist can use evolution theory while believing that all of it or part of it is untrue."

Also, one of the apparent differences between Luskin and Miller is that Luskin is claiming that teaching the controversy would increase student interest in science while Miller seems to claim that it would reduce student interest in science by reducing student confidence in science. I think that Luskin has the better point because the students are likely to learn about the controversy outside of science classes and would want their science classes to be candid about the controversy.

Long time lurker, First time poster.

Firstly, I encourage all people to NOT respond to Andy H AKA Larry the sad, lonely, ex-engineer, crackpot. It truly hurts to see a piece of cr*p human being given the sort of attention it does not deserve.

Secondly, I know people will still respond to the inane ramblings of waste-of-space lifeforms like Larry who hide behind fake user names as a 4-yrs old child. Think again. The "man" exists for this attention.

Should you ever meet "Larry" in person, bow before the sheer crapulance that the human race can produce. Then get on with living and thinking. I am sick and tired of people responding to a pile of sh*te.

C'mon guys, I know there are heaps of intelligent people here, ignore this twat for your own sake.

Comment #78864 Posted by PvM on February 10, 2006 11:37 PM Judge Jones wrote: ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

Judge Jones... Love the man...

It is just a biology textbook. Are there any other theories in the book besides evolution ? Probably all the other topics in the book are facts, so evolution was not being singled out for criticism among theories.

so evolution was not being singled out for criticism among theories

"Even if you wholly or partly reject evolution theory, it is still important for you to be familiar with it because a lot of science is based on it. A scientist can use evolution theory while believing that all of it or part of it is untrue."

Just about the only theories that most secondary school students are ever taught in science classes are evolution theory and atomic theory.

— Andy

However, atomic theory makes more sense than evolution theory and also is not contrary to some people's religious beliefs, so there is no big movement to put atomic theory disclaimer stickers in textbooks.

Are we going to cater to neoNazis claiming the holocaust never happened?

Comment #78887 Posted by MaxOblivion on February 11, 2006 05:44 AM (e) Whilst I agree Andy H. aka Larry is nothing more than a willfully-ignorant troll, he is at least posting on topic this time. So while he does post on topic, ill respond.

Ever hear of plate tectonics, Andy? The Germ Theory of Disease? Relativity? The Standard Model of Cosmology (aka Big Bang)? Convection? Subatomic particles? Superconductivity? Prions?

I would also love to hear your scientific alternative to evolution.

After all, why censor the only explanation(s) we have that make sense of all the facts? Censor it just in case it's not complete? Don't want kids learning things that may be modified or improved? Are you afraid it will damage their fragile minds...or worldviews?

The Germ Theory of Disease is no longer just a theory --- specific germs that cause diseases have been identified.

Superconductivity --- this is not just a theory --- it has actually been observed in a laboratory.

I have no scientific alternative --- but that does not mean that I should not criticize evolution theory.

Dear Larry,

Thank you very much for once again illustrating your willful-ignorance. We all know you understand the difference between the scientific meaning of "Theory" and the common useage of that term. The fact that you know this and still post the drivel above demonstrates your ugly attempts to mislead the casual reader.

Thanks again for being so obvious.

Yours appreciatingly,

A fan

Comment #78887 Posted by MaxOblivion on February 11, 2006 05:44 AM "It is just a biology textbook. Are there any other theories in the book besides evolution ? Probably all the other topics in the book are facts, so evolution was not being singled out for criticism among theories." So why not put the sticker on every textbook in the library?

"so evolution was not being singled out for criticism among theories" First you say evolution was the only theory in the text book then you say evolution wasnt being singled out. Do you have to really try to be this stupid.

"Even if you wholly or partly reject evolution theory, it is still important for you to be familiar with it because a lot of science is based on it. A scientist can use evolution theory while believing that all of it or part of it is untrue." There is no belief in evolution, beleif is faith based on the absense of evidence. There is no absense of evidence of evolution.

There is no controversy over evolution none at all. The only controversy is wether IDCreationism should be taught. The scientific case for evolution is decided and therefore there is no controversy.

Hey Larry/Andy/whoiever you are this week:

It looks like people are finally beginning to respond seriously to you.

That must warm the cockles of any crank's heart, huh.

Comment #78920 Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ on February 11, 2006 10:40 AM "The Germ Theory of Disease is no longer just a theory --- specific germs that cause diseases have been identified." Specific phenomena which cause evolution have been identified.

"Superconductivity --- this is not just a theory --- it has actually been observed in a laboratory." Evolution has also been observed in the laboratory.

Re "they'll probably have no idea how the heck an electron can "fuzz out" across an atom."
I wonder if physicists know how it can do that, either. :)

Re "Saying that atomic theory "makes more sense" than evolutionary theory is an entirely subjective opinion"
Yeah, they're both just extensions of common sense.

Henry

My point was that this textbook probably has no other theories to criticize, so evolution theory was probably not being singled out so far as this book is concerned.

— Larry, masquerading as Andy, fooling nobody

Most of the evolution that has been observed has been microevolution, whereas I am talking about macroevolution. The only example of observed macroevolution that I have heard of is the doubling of chromosomes in plants, and this does not begin to account for all of macroevolution.

Either way, Miller's claim seem to be different from what the limited quote suggested...

observed frequency, magnitudes, and favorableness of mutations have not been nearly great enough to account for macroevolution.

— Landarry H. Farfarfromsane

Also, favorable mutations and natural selection are not enough --- there are also the problems of (1) the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that reproduce sexually and (2) the co-evolution of co-dependent organisms.

1. Show that those are the only available mechanisms (good luck!),
2. Name the problem with organisms which reproduce sexually (the exchange of plasmids is known to drive very fast evolution in bacteria, and recombination does things in diploid organisms), and
3. State exactly what the problem is with co-evolution of organisms (again, with cites).

I formally invite Casey Luskin to debate me on the legitimacy of the Discovery Institute as a pro-science enterprise, as opposed to a religion-promoting organization of lying charlatans.

The plane ticket and dinner will be paid for by me.

C'mon Casey. Think you're up to it? Are you afraid that you'll come out on the, uh, bottom?

Hey Larry/Andy/whoever you are this week:

I'm still waiting to hear five "scientific arguments against evolution" that aren't just recycled ID/creationist crap.

What seems to be the problem?

Per my e-mail request to Casey, he has now changed the quote on the Evolution News & Views website. The full quote from Ken Miller is there now.

I'm actually quite surprised that he responded so quickly to me.

That doesn't make the article all that much better but at least he fixed the quote.

Re: "Belief is faith based ..."

A probabilist, or Bayesian if you prefer, will be most unhappy with this misuse of the word "belief". First of all, we have phrases such as "Take it on faith that ...". A probabilist translates this as "With high probability, despite the lack of evidence, ...".

A thorough-going probabilist is the most skeptical of all men, exceeding even David Hume. So everything, for such, is a belief held to a certain probability.

For example, looking out the window, I see the sun is shining. The thorough-going probabilist will translate this into "With probability almost, but not quite one: the sun is shining."

Similarly with the theory of evolution:
With probability almost, but not quite one, neo-Darwin evolutionary theory is explainatory.

However, sometimes one must act based on little or no relevant evidence. The probabilist recommends used Bayesian techniques to the extent possible to sort out the probable consequences of various actions. The "leap of faith" is then to act.

Fortunately scientists can simply continue to study and produce more, relevant evidence. It is policy and rule makers who perforce have to make a "leap of faith". We all wish this was done with a better understanding of the available evidence than we seem to have seen so far in the 21st century.

To summary, everybody has beliefs. Some are considered so certain that it is easier to simply say these are true. Examples: The sun is shining. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is explainatory.

Finally, everyone has to have enough faith to act, irrespective of the quantity and quality of the evidence, theories, and computational resource (brain power) available to relate the evidence to outcomes. For more, read your favorite existentialist philosopher.

Casey could at least give credit where credit is due... And perhaps explain his previous usage of Miller's quote?

This is a perplexing statement from Dr. Miller: he seems to say that if we permit students to question evolution, then they'll question everything. But then he is afraid that somehow this policy would lead students to believe that we are "certain" about everything in science (which of course, all would agree is not true). Yet in reality, the critical analysis policy in Cobb County would really to lead to the view that students and scientists SHOULD ask hard questions. Now Miller is a widely reputed textbook author and I'm sure that he wants his students to ask hard questions, but when leading biologists oppose critical analsyis policies for such bizarre reasons, this surely will not inspire enthusiasm for science in students.

— Luskin

Comment #78979 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 11, 2006 03:13 PM I'm still waiting to hear five "scientific arguments against evolution" that aren't just recycled ID/creationist crap.

I am very new to this --- so I don't know what is recycled and what is not. And the recycled stuff may be just oldies but goodies. And some old stuff may have been improved with new evidence and/or new arguments. Anyway, I have come up with criticisms of evolution theory that I have never seen anywhere. These criticisms concern (1) the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that use sexual reproduction and (2) the co-evolution of two co-dependent species. And why are five arguments necessary, anyway ? Just one good argument is enough.

— Andy H

Comment #78959 Posted by Laser on February 11, 2006 01:48 PM "My point was that this textbook probably has no other theories to criticize, so evolution theory was probably not being singled out so far as this book is concerned." And there you have it: "probably has no other theories to criticize". You don't even know what's in a high school biology textbook. You don't know what other theories might be in there, do you? You didn't even bother to pick one up and look in it before spouting your uninformed opinion, did you?

However, atomic theory makes more sense than evolution theory and also is not contrary to some people's religious beliefs, so there is no big movement to put atomic theory disclaimer stickers in textbooks.

— Andy H

Evolutionary biology is not the only science that uses its conclusions to support a naturalistic worldview. The motions of the planets and other objects are well explained by Newton's laws. The behavior of matter is understood in terms of atomic and mo lecular theories. Models in molecular biology and biochemistry are very successful in accounting for inheritance, disease, much physiology, and other biological phenomenon. To the unbelieving scientist, having a scientific explanation of some natural phenomenon is tantamount to saying that God is no longer needed as part of our explanation of the phenomenon. Even the weather, once thought by all to be in the domain of God's providence, is now being modeled with sophisticated computers with some degree of success. Why don't we get uneasy when chemists say that perfume diffusing from an open bottle to all parts of the room does so as a result of random, mechanical collisions between perfume and air molecules? (Interestingly, the 17th century theologians rejected the atomic theory on the basis that atomic explanations of matter were mechanistic and left no room for God.)

I am very new to this --- so I don't know what is recycled and what is not.

And the recycled stuff may be just oldies but goodies.

And some old stuff may have been improved with new evidence and/or new arguments.

Anyway, I have come up with criticisms of evolution theory that I have never seen anywhere. These criticisms concern (1) the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that use sexual reproduction

and (2) the co-evolution of two co-dependent species.

And why are five arguments necessary, anyway? Just one good argument is enough.

why don't you name some other theories that might be in the book ? Or are you just a bag of hot air ?

Perhaps an analogy helps. The Simple Genetic Algorithm is a computer program based on the easiest parts of sexual inheritance plus a little random mutation. While based on genetics, everybody should understand that this computer program is an oversimplification of biology.

However, such programs do evolve innovations, even patentable ones. The cases I know about involve electronic circuits and also associated antennas (not to be confused with natural antennas).

NASA uses such a computer program to design electronics for the robotic missions to Mars, etc.

The resulting evolved circuits work well and give the appearance of intelligent design by an engineer. But there is no designer, only simple evolution.

To some people, ID is partly religious. To others, it is strictly science (or pseudoscience). Generally, it is the ID-bashers who insist on defining ID as being at least partly religious because then they can try to use the constitutional principle of church-state separation to attack it. Merely describing ID as pseudoscientific is not enough for the ID-bashers, because there is no constitutional separation of pseudoscience and state. Though ID has been getting all the hoopla, there are other scientific (or pseudoscientific, if you prefer) criticisms of evolution theory that have little or nothing to do with "design," intelligent or otherwise. Some of these other criticisms of evolution theory concern (1) the propagation of favorable mutations, (2) the mathematical probability of evolution, and (3) co-evolution of two co-dependent organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants (though this co-dependence -- called "mutualism" -- could be a sort of irreducible complexity involving two organisms).

*****I don't understand what you mean by "favorable mutations".***** Favorable (or beneficial) mutations are supposed to be the driving force behind evolution. Favorable mutations produce changes in an organism that are favored by natural selection. Most mutations that have been observed are unfavorable. In organisms that use sexual reproduction, the mechanisms of the propagation of favorable mutations though many generations need to be studied.

****I don't understand co-evolution.**** Welcome to the club --- I think that scientists do not understand it either, or at least it seems that they cannot adequately explain it.

Co-evolution (sometimes spelled "coevolution") is defined as the mutual evolutionary influence between two kinds of organisms which become totally dependent on each other for survival. The Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia's article about co-evolution goes so far as to say, "few perfectly isolated examples of evolution can be identified --- essentially all evolution is co-evolution." A good example of co-dependence is the pollination of flowers by insects and birds. Sometimes a co-dependent organism has several features that are each closely coordinated with features of the other organism. Co-evolution is often much more of a problem than the kind of evolution which is mere adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment (e.g., water, land, air, and climate), because sometimes neither of the two co-dependent organisms would initially possess the feature that the other organism must adapt to. A mutation that produces a co-dependent feature in one of the two organisms would provide no evolutionary advantage -- and may even be detrimental to the organism -- when the corresponding feature in the other organism is absent. Thus, co-dependent features could sometimes be considered to be a kind of "irreducible complexity" involving two organisms, i.e., sometimes two corresponding features must be present in both organisms to be functional, and sometimes it is necessary for two or more pairs of corresponding features to be present in both organisms.

Do you think that Andy really believes that: Andy wrote: Just about the only theories that most secondary school students are ever taught in science classes are evolution theory and atomic theory.

Pim,

That's "Talk of the Nation" on NPR.

Thanks for pointing out the DI/Luskin error.

More about the sexual versus asexual "puzzle" at Mark Ridley's website

Comment #79052 Posted by PvM on February 11, 2006 06:25 PM

"These criticisms concern (1) the propagation of favorable mutations in organisms that use sexual reproduction and (2) the co-evolution of two co-dependent species."

What specifically are your criticisms? As to 2) evolution of co-dependence, I can easily envision a scenario of loose coupling followed by an ever increasing dependence. Sort of like an irreducibly complex scenario

Yes but what good is half an eye!

This is off-topic, and you get mad at people for going off-topic even when they are just responding to your questions. And I would not have even gotten started on this subject if Lenny Flank had not kept demanding an answer to his question, a question which I answered before. However, I will briefly answer your question.

— Andy H

Pim, That's "Talk of the Nation" on NPR. Thanks for pointing out the DI/Luskin error.

— Ed Darrell

Hey, Mr. Know-it-all, instead of just criticizing, why don't you name some other theories that might be in the book ? Or are you just a bag of hot air ?

— Larry, masquerading as Andy, tried to change the subject and didn't answer my questions,

Oblivion asked...
"Yes but what good is half an eye!"

Answer: A photosensitive patch of skin has a lot of value.

Next question.

Thanks Laser for educating us. I wonder what Larry/Andy has to say for himself? Perhaps, and hopefully, he is reading up on evolutionary science.

Posted by Laser on February 11, 2006 09:32 PM The textbook the school district I live in uses Ken Miller's fine textbook.

It presents the following theories (this list is not complete, it just shows that there is more than one theory presented in the book):

Other people pointed most of these out, but apparently you weren't paying attention.

It is supremely ludicrous for you to accuse anyone on this board of "just criticizing" and not giving examples. That is all that intelligent design does.

Stop embarassing yourself Andy. People have done you a favor by providing the relevant data.

I always understood that in organisms that reproduce sexually, new mutations (whether harmful, neutral, or beneficial), are frequently masked by dominant alleles, and so almost any mutation will spread better in sexual population than in asexual one.

Comment #79071 Posted by PvM on February 11, 2006 07:46 PM "In organisms that use sexual reproduction, the mechanisms of the propagation of favorable mutations though many generations need to be studied." See for the creationist origins of this argument

Check out Schneider's work on the co-evolution of binding sites for instance. It's actually not that hard to understand how co-evolution may evolve.

Comment #79082 posted by PvM on February 11, 2006 08:40 PM Co-evolution is only a problem when looking at the end result. However it is not that hard to imagine how strongly tied co-evolutionary scenarios can arise is a stepwise fashion from an initial loose connection to an increasingly tied connection.

Posted by PvM on February 12, 2006 02:49 AM (e) Stop embarassing yourself Andy. People have done you a favor by providing the relevant data.

Comment #78883 Posted by Andy H. on February 11, 2006 03:27 AM (e) At the Dover trial, Kenneth Miller said the following about the Cobb County textbook stickers --- "Now think about what this means to a student. It means to a student that you're supposed to do this to evolution but that every other topic in that book need not be critically considered or examined with an open mind." It is just a biology textbook. Are there any other theories in the book besides evolution ? Probably all the other topics in the book are facts, so evolution was not being singled out for criticism among theories...

"A photosensitive patch of skin has a lot of value"

Ah, but:

(i) what's the use of half a photosensitive patch of skin?

(ii) if eyes evolved from ppos, why are there still ppos?

[Apologies]

The Atomic Theory of Matter, Pauling's Theory of Chemical Bonding, Theory of Intermolecular Forces ---- these are most appropriate for chemistry and/or physics textbooks --- I would not expect to see them in a biology textbook,

— AndyH/LaLaLarry

Larry/Andy H./Jon B. in my opinion is a guy with a lot of time on his hands. Rather than do something useful with that opportunity, he is just jerking people around, honing his debating skills by defending lost causes against some very smart people.

Bennythejet (Comment #78884) was right.

If you feed a troll, that troll will eat the entire thread.

Oblivion asked... "Yes but what good is half an eye!" Answer: A photosensitive patch of skin has a lot of value. Next question.

Pierce Butler and Bennythejet,

You are correct. It's not about the troll, though. He thinks it's all about him, but it isn't. It's about providing facts, logic and reason so all the lurkers can see which side uses them and which side doesn't.

Previously

Larry/Andy H./Jon B. in my opinion is a guy with a lot of time on his hands. Rather than do something useful with that opportunity, he is just jerking people around, honing his debating skills by defending lost causes against some very smart people.

I.e., he is a crank.

...er....m*sdebating skills might be more accurate.

Well.... a very common garden variety typical representative of Genus:
Creationist Intelligent Design crank who is TOTALLY and WILLFULLY IGNORANT of any science let alone biology.

Hey Larry tell us all about Meteors and Imaginary numbers, you know the ones the fairies use.
Larry is so confident of his supreme knowledge in this area that without reading ALL of the evidence against Creationist Intelligent Design at Dover he can STILL SAY the Judge got it wrong. Oh now I remember, he's a right wingnut with some very reactionary identity politics issues.

And PvM I don't know if you noticed that the diligence you have shown to try and HELP Larry is completely and immediately DELIBERATELY IGNORED. He has absolutely no interest in the facts. I know that you are doing a service for others who have a genuine desire to learn and for that reason Larry continues to be one the best advertisements for Creationist Intelligent Design.

Just watch he will post some garbage to try and distract everyone from his sad, sad ignorance.

So Larry Creationist Intelligent Design F.
tell us all about the problems you had with your parents, we've got 'til eternity.

Comment #79171 Posted by Jon Fleming on February 12, 2006 08:18 AM

The Atomic Theory of Matter, Pauling's Theory of Chemical Bonding, Theory of Intermolecular Forces ---- these are most appropriate for chemistry and/or physics textbooks --- I would not expect to see them in a biology textbook,

Nobody cares what you expect. The fact is that those are in a biology textbook and therefore your claim about what theories are taught is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Viola Larry....er you do play don't you?

As predicted change the subject and try something else.

As for Kenneth Miller, I would not use any of his textbooks

That's great so now you are going to shut up about teaching biology AND religion in high school science classes since you can't and won't even learn grade 9 biology, after your complete failure on every other argument what is that not a surprise?

Classic Larry.

The guy is a nutcase who stereotypes ID proponents as being religiously motivated.

hahahahahahaha

you meant to say Larry you old Creationist Intelligent Design proponent

Dr Miller stereotypes Creationist Intelligent Design propagandists being religiously motivated.

Funny how the Judge in Dover agreed with him.

Posted by Andy H. on February 12, 2006 12:18 PM (e) Comment #79171 Posted by Jon Fleming on February 12, 2006 08:18 AM The Atomic Theory of Matter, Pauling's Theory of Chemical Bonding, Theory of Intermolecular Forces ---- these are most appropriate for chemistry and/or physics textbooks --- I would not expect to see them in a biology textbook,

RE: Comment #79187

MaxOblivion, you are right. I didnt realize you were being sarcastic. I am new around these parts. I withdraw my answer because it compromises your very funny posting.

Ok, but now is Gav (#79168) serious or is he sustaining the parody?

Posted by Stephen Elliott on February 12, 2006 12:40 PM Good grief.

a. Luskin quotes Ken Miller out of context.

b. You defend it saying "evolution was not singled out as it was the only theory in the book".

c. You are pointed out to be in error.

d. You then claim that people are just nit-picking.

wonder why so many commenters on this website cannot correct others without calling them stupid, ignorant, lazy, etc..

OK, so I made a little mistake, and I was corrected --- but not politely. I wonder why so many commenters on this website cannot correct others without calling them stupid, ignorant, lazy, etc.. In fact, Laser was familiar with the textbook, but instead of correcting me in his first post on the subject, he just flamed me. Think of all the space and time that are wasted here by responses like that.

— Larry, masquerading as Andy,

Posted by Laser on February 13, 2006 08:42 AM
I was not polite because you have not shown yourself to be worthy of politeness.

How have I not shown myself to be worthy of politeness? Please be specific.

However, if you look at my posts, you will see that I never called you any names.

One can be impolite without calling names. You don't have to call someone ignorant -- you can just say that you don't know this or that which you are supposed to know. You don't have to call someone lazy -- you can just say that you didn't do this or that which you were supposed to do.

A little mistake? Not knowing what is in a high school biology textbook, if you are going to discuss it, is a HUGE mistake!

I did not know what was in THIS particular biology textbook. I did not even know who wrote it. I just made a reasonable guess that it did not have an introduction to chemistry, because that is a separate high school subject.

Posts that point out your mistakes are a waste of space and time!

Yes, they are a waste of space and time if they do not provide the correct information !

I was indeed familiar with the biology textbook, but it's not incumbent upon me to give examples of other theories.

It was incumbent upon you, because you were the one who raised the objection to my statement.

It was clear from your first post that you don't know the first thing about what is in a high school biology textbook

As I said, I did not know what was in THIS particular biology textbook.

Then, when presented with the examples of other theories, you respond with a Wikipedia-level summary of each of them.

"Wikipedia-level summary" -- LOL. A brief summary was all that was required ! And BTW, I have found Wikipedia to be an excellent reference -- the articles are generally comprehensive, up-to-date, unbiased, and usually accurate. I often go to Wikipedia first for an introduction to a topic.

Regradless of All I'm asking is what everyone else on this board is asking: that you actually know something about the topics on which you speak. (Anyone remember imaginary numbers?)

Yes, I remember imaginary numbers, and the fact that I was the only one who understood their application to AC circuit analysis. Since then I have switched to "phasors," which are vectors that rotate around the origin in the complex plane, because their lack of a direct physical relationship to AC circuits is much more obvious than that of imaginary numbers.

Please spare us the lecture on politeness. I was blunt but civil in my posts.

In your first statement, you admitted that you were not polite, but now you say that you were "civil." Which is it ?

My biggest problem was not with your bluntness, but with your initial failure to provide a list of some of the theories that I omitted. Your first post on this subject was in violation of Rules 1 and 4 of the Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy. Rule 1 prohibits "spam" among other things, and Rule 4 prohibits posts that are "inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary."

If you want to do something constructive, why don't you rebut my comments about co-evolution and the propagation of favorable mutations in sexual reproduction (Comment #79162 ) -- if you can.

Bwhahhahahhahahhah
Larry you take the cake !!!
Funniest thing I've seen for a month.
Breath taking inanity.

Run along now, your village called, they want their idiot back.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Stop it Larry, my sides hurt from laughing so much!

Classic Larry!

Landarry H. Farfarfromsane is still sticking to the "no physical significance of imaginary numbers/phasors" nonsense!  He just cannot admit error.  Simply amazing.

Where have I seen denial like that before besides creatonuts?  Oh yeah, here.

Yes, I remember imaginary numbers, and the fact that I was the only one who understood their application to AC circuit analysis.

— Larry

Chiefley asked:

"is Gav (#79168) serious or is he sustaining the parody?"

A recurrent theme on this site is how hard it can be to distinguish parody from some of the arguments used by real creationists.

The interesting thing here though is that while a creationist may ask questions like "what use is half an eye?" without (as was remarked about jesting Pilate) staying for the answer, they may actually be quite reasonable questions in themselves. One might, I suppose, learn a fair bit of biology by studying around them.

Nobody quote mines like the Discovery Institute. They have it down to an artform actually. Take the words someone said, and reverse the meaning completely.

Re "One might, I suppose, learn a fair bit of biology by studying around them."

Or the attention they bring to the subject might cause some people to read stuff about the subject, who would otherwise have likely never paid it much (if any) attention.

Henry

Yes, I remember imaginary numbers, and the fact that I was the only one who understood their application to AC circuit analysis. Since then I have switched to "phasors," which are vectors that rotate around the origin in the complex plane, because their lack of a direct physical relationship to AC circuits is much more obvious than that of imaginary numbers.

— Larry Fafarman

Andy/Larry/whoever says... "The issue here is not whether I was right or wrong, but whether I was unreasonable in my assumption that evolution theory was the only theory in the textbook. I was not aware that this biology textbook includes an introduction to chemistry."

*All* biology textbooks include discussion of atomic theory, plate tectonics theory, etc. *All* of them. Because, you see, biology isn't some isolated activity. There isn't really a "biology" science, and a "chemistry" science, and a "physics" science--there's just "science"--our pursuit of understanding of our universe. And all these disciplines are intricately intertwined with each other. Particularly in our modern world, our understanding of biology is tightly interwoven with chemistry, physics and geology. You can't adequately come to understand biology unless you first understand a bit of physics and a lot of chemistry.

So the only reason that you would be surprised about finding that biology textbooks contain, besides the apparently "pure biology" theories like evolutionary theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease, also contain atomic theory, plate tectonics theory, etc., is that you are simply ignorant about the realities of biology and the broader understanding of science.